Farhan Lalji wrote:Middle ground gets you nowhere. Taking an aggressive stance and full commitment in one direction gets results.

That is a pile of crap. Almost every year, there is a dark horse team, somewhere between 5-8th seed that makes a terrific run. And, on occasion (e.g. this year) they win the Cup. Every GM knows that it is a crap shoot once the playoffs start, and the big thing is to consistently get there. Building a team that can consistently makes the playoffs and is in the top 4 in their conference more often than not is what gets results. And, that is exactly what GMMG is doing. Making a commitment in one direction (selling off the future for today, or buying albatross contracts) might increase your odds for one year, but overall, hits your chances severely. GMs want consistent results, and fan support, not boom/bust teams.

And, as a fan, I want consistent, good results too.

Sounds like the San Jose Sharks, consistently good in the regular season, blow a tire in the playoffs every year. I guess if that's what you consider success well, have at 'er. I myself would like to win the Stanley Cup once and for all. We've been in the league for 42 years is it? No Stanley Cup? I'm getting fucking old, it's time to win the damn thing. Build a team built for the playoffs, with players who can stay healthy unlike ours, more depth at forward. I DON'T FUCKING CARE ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS TROPHY! And either do the L.A. Kings, Boston Bruins, New Jersey Devils. WooHoo, Yay, Where's the Presidents Trophy Parade?

I will give Gillis some credit, he has attempted to Manage from a win now mentality, he recognized the great window of opportunity handed to him on a silver platter by the group of players assembled by previous managements, unfortunately for Gillis TWO KEY WIN NOW TRADES went bust on him, Ballard and Booth. The biggest black eye that will go down in Canuck history for Gillis is the Ballard trade, wasting a big part of the Canucks futures on Ballard. Now he has handcuffed the team with $9 million in two contracts on two players who have not meshed with the core group of this team. I can throw in Demitra, Sundin as more failed attempts at winning now, the fire sale of draft picks for support players who have not managed to help the core group to win Lord Stanley, i.e Bernier, Pahlsson, Lappiere, Higgins. The List goes on. Gillis was supposed to bring us the Cup, he has failed and if any of you notice the chart, his team digressed in the playoffs quite considerably, from Stanley Cup Finals to First Round Oust-al. We now get to see what Gillis is truly made of, now that the core group is starting to show signs of getting stale, the Sedins are pushing 33, the 2 best players this franchise has ever seen and still no Stanley Cup? Serious changes need to be made, and if those changes fail, Gillis should be fired. Once the Sedins are gone, or are no longer dominant players, we are back to .500 hockey cause Gillis has depleted the farm of any sign of the next coming for the Sedins to hand the torch to. The 28th ranking in Organizational Depth by the reliable, hardworking staff at Hockeysfuture is the worst this storied franchise has seen since like forever. It's time to win now before the door closes on Lord Stanley, Gillis.

Sorry RD, I had a good laugh at this. You sound almost hysterical and it's quite funny. I realize your points and don't agree with them but we've been through this many times. Guess we'll just have to see what Gillis does this offseason.

Farhan Lalji wrote:Middle ground gets you nowhere. Taking an aggressive stance and full commitment in one direction gets results.

That is a pile of crap. Almost every year, there is a dark horse team, somewhere between 5-8th seed that makes a terrific run. And, on occasion (e.g. this year) they win the Cup.[.quote]

Fair enough but let me ask you this: Of these dark horse teams that make that run, how often does this SAME dark horse team make another run?

Like I said - the 2004 Calgary Flames team made their dark horse run.................once.
The 2006 Edmonton Oiler team made their run..................once
The 1994 Canucks team made their run...............once.

Bottom line? Dark horse runs happen more frequently than we think, but it's different teams that do it. Carolina and Anaheim did it in 2002 and 2003 respectively, and then won cups 4 years later under a different core (if that's what you're getting at).

And, as a fan, I want consistent, good results too.

Unfortunately, it IS the best way to do business...........and you're right. The risk of a team being in the gutter for year's on end is extremely risky and dangerous, and needs to be avoided at all costs. Although we as fans might disagree, having the past 8 year history of the San Jose Sharks IS better than..........what a team like Tampa Bay or Anaheim has had for instance.

I think Gillis' approach is the best...........as frustrating as I found it last year when he traded Hodgson................but the impatient kid in me wishes that there was a bit more of a "go for it now" mentality so that we don't have to possibly wait another 16 years.

Farhan Lalji wrote:
I think Gillis' approach is the best...........as frustrating as I found it last year when he traded Hodgson................but the impatient kid in me wishes that there was a bit more of a "go for it now" mentality so that we don't have to possibly wait another 16 years.

It's entirely possible Gillis knew the Canucks had no chance this season... hence the Hodgson trade at the deadline to get the guy he wanted before the summer. Give Kassian a few months with his new team, get him right into a training program as soon as the offseason hits, and have him ready for Game 1 next fall.

If Gillis knew the extent of Kesler's injury, he probably knew we were hosed regardless. Hodgson could never replace Kesler this season, and without Kesler... well we saw what happened in the Final.

Island Nucklehead wrote:
It's entirely possible Gillis knew the Canucks had no chance this season... hence the Hodgson trade at the deadline to get the guy he wanted before the summer. Give Kassian a few months with his new team, get him right into a training program as soon as the offseason hits, and have him ready for Game 1 next fall.

If you can chose trade timing to either: (a) improve your playoff chances, or; (b) get the new player extra team experience; the priority seems clear (a). However, there's a simpler hypotheses for the Hodgson-Kassian trade timing.

Previous discussions about the trade seem to hinge on an assumption that I haven't seen questioned. The assumption that Gillis chose to trade an offensive asset (Hodgson) near the deadline, for a banger with potential.

It's possible the trade timing was Lindy Ruff's preference. This would result from a situation where Gillis had expressed an interest in the Kassian trade, but Ruff wouldn't bite until he thought the Sabres needed extra scoring to make the playoffs, & Hodgson might be the answer. It's possible that Gillis played this hand to perfection. Time will tell.

Outside of Pitsburgh/Detroit, how many teams have climbed back to the Stanley Cup finals shortly after appearing in it? Unless you consider 9 (NINE) years to be "within the window", then the answer to your question is the New Jersey Devils.......a team that has a completely different core from 2003.

Going to the period right before you cut it off, there was Carolina, NJD, Colorado, Detroit that all returned to the finals in a span of 3-4 years. Carolina did it before the lockout, sucked and blew for a couple years then came back to win it in 06.

What is more important to note from your list is that other than Pitt-Detroit, no team went to the finals and made it out of the first round the following year.

That last statement can't be ignored. With the exception of one other team (the Bruins), nobody played longer than the Canucks last year, and yet we still managed the President's trophy. It's not a complete surprise that they ran out of gas come playoff time.

Diehard1 wrote:
Sorry RD, I had a good laugh at this. You sound almost hysterical and it's quite funny. I realize your points and don't agree with them but we've been through this many times. Guess we'll just have to see what Gillis does this offseason.

I am hysterical. Gillis makes me hysterical. Like I said, 'Who Is He and What Does He Do?'

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

Great point and I do agree. I try to think of a player that Gillis brought in who has made a huge impact on the team and became a core player, but it's kind of hard to think of one. Most of the core is still from the previous regimes: Sedins, Kes, Lou, Bieska, Edler, Schneider, etc. Hell, old man Salo was still used much more than I would have liked this season. Ehrhoff comes to mind as a good one, but Gillis was unable to hold on to him. Hamhuis I guess, but let's face it, Dan wanted to come back to his home province and it was an easy signing for Gillis. There was Hodgson who was starting to look like a potential core player, but that has been flipped to Kassian and the jury is still out on that one.

When u look @ the guys who Gillis brought in, u see alot of role players and supporting cast types: Bernier, Lappiere, Higgy, SOB, Johnson, Hordichuck, Wellwoond, etc. Decent players and limited to what they can bring to the table, but there are alot of guys like them around the NHL (a dime a dozen). They are not impact players that can greatly improve the odds for this team to win a cup.

RoyalDude wrote:
I will give Gillis some credit, he has attempted to Manage from a win now mentality, he recognized the great window of opportunity handed to him on a silver platter by the group of players assembled by previous managements, unfortunately for Gillis TWO KEY WIN NOW TRADES went bust on him, Ballard and Booth. The biggest black eye that will go down in Canuck history for Gillis is the Ballard trade, wasting a big part of the Canucks futures on Ballard. Now he has handcuffed the team with $9 million in two contracts on two players who have not meshed with the core group of this team. I can throw in Demitra, Sundin as more failed attempts at winning now, the fire sale of draft picks for support players who have not managed to help the core group to win Lord Stanley, i.e Bernier, Pahlsson, Lappiere, Higgins. The List goes on.

Diehard1 wrote:
Sorry RD, I had a good laugh at this. You sound almost hysterical and it's quite funny. I realize your points and don't agree with them but we've been through this many times. Guess we'll just have to see what Gillis does this offseason.

I am hysterical. Gillis makes me hysterical. Like I said, 'Who Is He and What Does He Do?'

Just relax - we'll have some hockey deals to talk about soon enough. I think we're all jonesing for some hockey news at this point, I know I am.

Gillis will be fine - just let him do his thing. If he does little to nothing this off- season then I will be joining you asking what the hell is he doing, but I think there's very little chance that happens.

Why is he getting flak for keeping this core together? A smart man realizes when his side of the fence is indeed greener. He could have gone out and made a deal for "core" players and it probably would have been subtraction by addition because like it or not you have to GIVE UP to get.

So now were at a point where he can make a significant change to the core of the lineup, and were ready to pass judgement before he has even done anything. Why don't we wait to see how the next two seasons go, after we get to see the aftermath of his two biggest moves. Those moves being the hodgson trade, and the inevitable trade of a goaltender this off-season.

Farhan Lalji wrote:Middle ground gets you nowhere. Taking an aggressive stance and full commitment in one direction gets results.

That is a pile of crap. Almost every year, there is a dark horse team, somewhere between 5-8th seed that makes a terrific run. And, on occasion (e.g. this year) they win the Cup. Every GM knows that it is a crap shoot once the playoffs start, and the big thing is to consistently get there. Building a team that can consistently makes the playoffs and is in the top 4 in their conference more often than not is what gets results. And, that is exactly what GMMG is doing. Making a commitment in one direction (selling off the future for today, or buying albatross contracts) might increase your odds for one year, but overall, hits your chances severely. GMs want consistent results, and fan support, not boom/bust teams.

And, as a fan, I want consistent, good results too.

Sounds like the San Jose Sharks, consistently good in the regular season, blow a tire in the playoffs every year. I guess if that's what you consider success well, have at 'er. I myself would like to win the Stanley Cup once and for all. We've been in the league for 42 years is it? No Stanley Cup? I'm getting fucking old, it's time to win the damn thing. Build a team built for the playoffs, with players who can stay healthy unlike ours, more depth at forward. I DON'T FUCKING CARE ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS TROPHY! And either do the L.A. Kings, Boston Bruins, New Jersey Devils. WooHoo, Yay, Where's the Presidents Trophy Parade?

Sounds like you are arguing for both a consistantly good team ( SJS, LA, Bruins, Devils), and a fire sale of prospects to take a shot during our window of opportunity (Colorado several years back. heh heh). Health, imo, is too much a factor of luck than anything else. How the Canucks manage players -may- influence how long injuries last, or if they get worse. as an example, BMo played at least 40 games injured during his Iron man streak. And, Kesler, by accounts should have been benched for February and March, if not sent for surgury. We seem to have a culture of playing thru the wrong types of injuries (mainly cartliage/tendon types, as compared to bruises), and having them hang around to te playoffs. Not sure how muck is the player's fault, or the team's fault, or the GM for picking injury prone dudes. I suspect it is more on how the team deals with the injuries.

Tciso wrote:
Health, imo, is too much a factor of luck than anything else. How the Canucks manage players -may- influence how long injuries last, or if they get worse. as an example, BMo played at least 40 games injured during his Iron man streak. And, Kesler, by accounts should have been benched for February and March, if not sent for surgury. We seem to have a culture of playing thru the wrong types of injuries (mainly cartliage/tendon types, as compared to bruises), and having them hang around to te playoffs. Not sure how muck is the player's fault, or the team's fault, or the GM for picking injury prone dudes. I suspect it is more on how the team deals with the injuries.

This why I disagree with Leves assessment of his man Gillis on this so-called great things that Gillis is doing behind the scenes with the team. Ever since Gillis took over this team has done a terrible job at managing their players injuries, ie Hodgson's back, Daniel Sedin, regarding "does he have a concussion or not". The fact that Kesler seems to need surgery every summer and the same can be said for Burrows. A bit weird that Kesler, Burrows and Demitra have had the same shoulder surgery. When was the last time this team was healthy? I'd have to go back to the pre-Gillis era of management to find that cause for some strange reason, this team has issues with managing injuries under the Gillis regime.

Gillis just plain sucks on all levels

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

RoyalDude wrote:
This why I disagree with Leves assessment of his man Gillis on this so-called great things that Gillis is doing behind the scenes with the team. Ever since Gillis took over this team has done a terrible job at managing their players injuries, ie Hodgson's back, Daniel Sedin, regarding "does he have a concussion or not". The fact that Kesler seems to need surgery every summer and the same can be said for Burrows. A bit weird that Kesler, Burrows and Demitra have had the same shoulder surgery. When was the last time this team was healthy? I'd have to go back to the pre-Gillis era of management to find that cause for some strange reason, this team has issues with managing injuries under the Gillis regime.

Gillis just plain sucks on all levels

Yes... because when Gillis wasn't around:

-Salo was never hurt.
-Naslund didn't get concussed and lose his wrist shot.
-Bertuzzi never herniated disks.
-Ohlund didn't nearly lose an eye.
-Morrison didn't play through a wonky wrist before needing surgery.
-Cloutier was never hurt.

Kesler needs surgery because he plays recklessly and isn't huge at 200lbs. Didn't Burrows go play for Team Canada this spring? You're blaming Gillis for not being sure about Sedin's concussion? Cuz they have concrete return timelines...